1: I didn't get past your first comment, because it was so obviously wrong I'm puzzled over why you posted it. Show us all here where you proved my point about the speed of the climate change occurring far faster than any time in history was wrong? Go ahead and cite us the science that supports your position. You won't be able to find it. Mentioning that there was an ice age previously does not in any way prove my points wrong. Not even close.

Name one source other than humans that would have caused the planet to heat up since let's say 1970. Name it. You won't be able to find it, because all factors that would have affected our climate would have cooled the planet. The only factor that would have raised the temperatures was humans. Since the planet has warmed during this time period, then we know for a fact humans are responsible for 100% of the rise in temperature during that time period.

I already named it what you demand in the second paragraph. If you skim my posts, and leave out important stuff from reading, don't blame me with ignorance and being wrong. I did mention (not based on scientific reports) that the magma under the mantle could be changing its thermodynamic disposition. We have no data to support that or to deny that, but it is a possibility we can't discount.

You did say "history", so strictly speaking, you are right. History did start with the mesopotamian culture, about ten thousand years ago. But taking pre-historic times into consideration: The last ice-age left in a hurry. Whether the warm-up was speedier then than now, is hard to debate, pro or con. But icebergs and a lot of ice melted in a very short time. Please read Atla's post (two up or three from here), he describes several such instances. It is not a report I cited, but the fact that the polar ice caps and Greenland ice is not melting at the same rate as the ice cover at the coming out of the last ice age.

If you are ignorant of that, then I understand why you call me ignorant and wrong in all I said.

1: Wrong again. The evidence is that the climate is changing far faster now than ever in the past. Plus, as far as the so-called magma theory goes, you even admitted you have zero evidence to support it, which means that we most definitely can rule it out. Science does not work by thinking up ideas that do not have any factual support and then claiming they cannot be ruled out.

If you look at the actual evidence, when we mathematically remove factors like the effects from an el nino, the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures is nearly linear. So, it's really hard to imagine that there is some other factor that is mainly responsible for the temperature rising, which just so happens to correspond to a nearly linear relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and temperature increases. The likelihood of that occurring is something like 0.

I accept that the climate is getting warmer and I agree that human activity is the major cause, what I don't accept is the claims that it is going to be a disaster. In the past the general trend was to be colder and dryer or warmer and wetter, I believe the claims by politicians that it is going to be a disaster is just political rhetoric and an attempt to sway the voters to re-elect them so that they can do nothing. I have said that those who should be in office don't want it, and those who want to be in office shouldn't be there, elections end up picking the best of the worst for the job.

Nor'easter #3 is due to hit on Monday - Tuesday (which was originally forecasted for Friday - Saturday). The spaghetti models the forecasters rely on varies from channel to channel so the weather forecasts vary from channel to channel and from day to day. Science? Ha!

Weather forecasting is still unreliable. What makes me sadly laugh is that people will rely on them while avoid riding in driverless cars, which are far more reliable in terms of projected traffic fatalities.

Since global warming is far more complicated than weather forecasting, I don't see any legitimacy to it at all.
Even if the global temperature was stabilized to some desired level, what happens when the sea level rises anyway. And can we depend on scientists to adjust the sea level to some satisfactory level? What if they overshoot the mark?

Your turn.

PhilX

Hey if you're anti-science that's fine. Just remember to not use electricity, a car, a plane, the internet, any type of technology for that matter. Have fun in your cave. Anything short of that is just hypocrisy on your part.

That's a mighty big if.

PhilX

It sure is. These anti-science types take so much for granted they just have no clue. Like the Tea Party idiots who hold up signs that say (to the effect) Keep Your Government Hands Off My Medicare.

'Going to be'? It's one already, and it can only get worse. Think a Katrina or Irma every month, or week.....

Are you saying for sure that there wasn't a Katrina or Irma every month, before there were records of the weather at the time in the area? Did the native Americans keep that kind of record, and where are they?

thedoc: We are presently suffering from the effects of climate change. Fire seasons are now months longer than they previously were, which is by itself extremely costly. We have an increase in extreme weather events, which is exactly what was predicted to happen. It's also true that even if we stopped adding any more greenhouse gases today, that ocean levels shall continue to rise, and all coastal areas will be flooded. This means a huge destruction of wealth is going to take place in the not-too-distant future, and it's largely going to happen as a result of science-deniers who claimed that fighting climate change was going to destroy wealth. Oh, the irony.

Blue green algae were heavily implicated in the Permian extinction event or The Great Dying, the worst of them all, killing around 90% of species. It is also known as The Great Oxygenation Event because the photosynthesis of blue green algae flooded the Earth's atmosphere with oxygen, making complex life on Earth possible.

i think you are refering to the "snowball earth" which was 2 billion years before "The Great Dying", where algae removed CO2 and returned o2 back into the atmosphere. o2 is a poor greenhouse gas.

it is still a mystery - we have no knowledge of the primorial makeup of Earth's Atmosphere (which had no o2 in it) - it is assumed that it had enough co2 to compensate for a far weaker sun (2/3's that of today's sun) -enough to allow for liquid water (maybe the mantle had enough heat from Earth's formation and the twice the amount of radioactive metals in the mantle to help keep the earth warm in spite of the weak sun).

the latter was due to the Deccan Traps - indian ocean area of "hot mantle" that spewed CO2 into the atmosphere for millions of years via volcanoes.

Blue green algae were heavily implicated in the Permian extinction event or The Great Dying, the worst of them all, killing around 90% of species. It is also known as The Great Oxygenation Event because the photosynthesis of blue green algae flooded the Earth's atmosphere with oxygen, making complex life on Earth possible.

i think you are refering to the "snowball earth" which was 2 billion years before "The Great Dying", where algae removed CO2 and returned o2 back into the atmosphere. o2 is a poor greenhouse gas.

it is still a mystery - we have no knowledge of the primorial makeup of Earth's Atmosphere (which had no o2 in it) - it is assumed that it had enough co2 to compensate for a far weaker sun (2/3's that of today's sun) -enough to allow for liquid water (maybe the mantle had enough heat from Earth's formation and the twice the amount of radioactive metals in the mantle to help keep the earth warm in spite of the weak sun).

the latter was due to the Deccan Traps - indian ocean area of "hot mantle" that spewed CO2 into the atmosphere for millions of years via volcanoes.

gaf, yes, it was a different world then with different conditions, prone to ice ages

the main relevantly transformative effect of the blue-green algae to humanity and other complex life was not CO² levels but oxygen, which was produced by those first photosynthesisers. Oxygen was toxic to almost all existing organisms, thus 90% of them died out in the Permian extinction event. Yet the oxygen made complex multicellular life possible.

Basically, the biosphere restructured itself - it underwent metamorphosis. It is doing it again today. At this stage it appears most likely that the future of the Earth's surface in following centuries will have many fewer large and complex organisms but many more intelligent machines and cyborgs.

thedoc: We are presently suffering from the effects of climate change. Fire seasons are now months longer than they previously were, which is by itself extremely costly. We have an increase in extreme weather events, which is exactly what was predicted to happen. It's also true that even if we stopped adding any more greenhouse gases today, that ocean levels shall continue to rise, and all coastal areas will be flooded. This means a huge destruction of wealth is going to take place in the not-too-distant future, and it's largely going to happen as a result of science-deniers who claimed that fighting climate change was going to destroy wealth. Oh, the irony.

What was the length of the fire season before records were kept, and who would fight the fires? Yes we have an increase in extreme weather since records have been kept, but what was the incidence of extreme weather before records were kept? Venice has been building up for years, anyone with valuable property can do the same and keep their property where it is.

There may have been several long Snowball Earth periods (3 or more), but as gaffo explained the Permian extinction happened after these. It happened billions of years after the Great Oxygenation event.

On another note, it's also interesting how the last Snowball Earth, the Cryogenian seems to have set the stage for the Cambrian explosion.

Was there ever a major extinction event where whatever occupied the top slot on the food chain survived the event?

Yes, some life will certainly survive the Holocene extinction, and will probably breed a whole new set of species tuned to the new balance.
Somehow humans don't seem adapted to it. We seem too dependent on somebody else keeping civilization running.

Blue green algae were heavily implicated in the Permian extinction event or The Great Dying, the worst of them all, killing around 90% of species. It is also known as The Great Oxygenation Event because the photosynthesis of blue green algae flooded the Earth's atmosphere with oxygen, making complex life on Earth possible.

i think you are refering to the "snowball earth" which was 2 billion years before "The Great Dying", where algae removed CO2 and returned o2 back into the atmosphere. o2 is a poor greenhouse gas.

it is still a mystery - we have no knowledge of the primorial makeup of Earth's Atmosphere (which had no o2 in it) - it is assumed that it had enough co2 to compensate for a far weaker sun (2/3's that of today's sun) -enough to allow for liquid water (maybe the mantle had enough heat from Earth's formation and the twice the amount of radioactive metals in the mantle to help keep the earth warm in spite of the weak sun).

the latter was due to the Deccan Traps - indian ocean area of "hot mantle" that spewed CO2 into the atmosphere for millions of years via volcanoes.

gaf, yes, it was a different world then with different conditions, prone to ice ages

the main relevantly transformative effect of the blue-green algae to humanity and other complex life was not CO² levels but oxygen, which was produced by those first photosynthesisers. Oxygen was toxic to almost all existing organisms, thus 90% of them died out in the Permian extinction event. Yet the oxygen made complex multicellular life possible.

Basically, the biosphere restructured itself - it underwent metamorphosis. It is doing it again today. At this stage it appears most likely that the future of the Earth's surface in following centuries will have many fewer large and complex organisms but many more intelligent machines and cyborgs.

with respect I think you are confused here. the increacing o2 levels via BG algae created the "snowball earth" `1-2 billion yrs prior to the "great dying" which was much later and was used to be thought of via a comet/asteroid/supper nova...............and today viewed as due to the deccan traps (volcanoes)./

I'm not one to jump to conclusions - esp since so far "We really don't know" which of the above was the cause of the "great dying".

--------but IMO if you think that the "great dying" was due to BG algae pumpig o2 into the atmos - your conclusion is wrong.

the great dying was much later - when amimals lived - all animals need o2 to live. so o2 is not relivent to their "Dying" per this particular.................not to mention said dying was much later than snowball earth era.